Jury: Honeywell committed fraud against Hunt

A Dallas jury ruled Monday that Honeywell International committed fraud against Hunt Consolidated by not telling the Dallas-based oil company about certain defects in Honeywell’s turbofan engines, which powered two of Hunt’s corporate Learjets.

In a 10-2 verdict, the jury awarded Hunt nearly $1.4 million in damages, which included the costs of rental engine fees and for repairing Hunt’s engines.

The jury of eight women and four men heard three weeks of testimony and deliberated for nearly two full days before announcing its decision.

Hunt sued Honeywell in 2011 after it discovered the alleged defect on one of the company’s Learjets during a preflight inspection for a flight that was supposed to take a group of Hunt employees and their family members from Dallas to Austin for a business trip.

Lawyers for Hunt say that further investigation revealed that essentially all of the blade retainers in the Learjet’s engines had broken off and caused secondary damage to the engine.

Hunt and its CEO, Ray L. Hunt, contended during the trial that the engine defects could have been deadly if the engine had failed in the air rather than on the ground.

Lawyers for Hunt argued that information about the defective blade retainers should have been included in a 2008 service bulletin that Honeywell sent to customers announcing a new, “more robust” blade retainer design that could be installed at its next routine maintenance checkup, which Learjets are scheduled to have at 2,500 flight hours.

By leaving out such information, Honeywell put its corporate profits before safety, Michael Hurst, one of Hunt’s lawyers, told jurors.

“This is not an acceptable way for an international corporation to behave or to treat its customers,” Hurst said. “Hopefully this [verdict] will be sent to manufacturers around the world that this is not the right behavior.”

Hurst and Shonn Brown, partners at Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank, both said that Hunt spent more money in legal fees than he ever expected to be awarded from the jury just so he could publicly scold Honeywell for its conduct.

In a company statement, Honeywell expressed its intention to appeal and its disappointment in the jury’s verdict.

“Honeywell is proud of the superb performance and safety record of its 731 turbofan engines and remains committed to the highest standards of quality and customer satisfaction,” the statement said.

To post a comment, log into your chosen social network and then add your comment below. Your comments are subject to our Terms of Service and the privacy policy and terms of service of your social network. If you do not want to comment with a social network, please consider writing a letter to the editor.